Commentary. Gaza is approaching another winter with civilians still exposed to violence, displacement and severe shortages. The United Nations says nearly two million Palestinians urgently need shelter assistance, while available stocks and incoming supplies cover only a fraction of identified needs. That is not merely a humanitarian emergency. It is a test of whether the international system means what it says when it promises to protect civilians in war.
The latest briefing from the United Nations describes preparations for cold and rain continuing as attacks affecting civilians persist. Separately, the Security Council has convened an open debate amid reports of lethal strikes, demolitions and rising violence in Gaza and the West Bank. These developments should make one principle non-negotiable: humanitarian relief must be allowed to reach people at the scale required, independently of political negotiations.
Our view is straightforward. No government should be permitted to use food, shelter, fuel or medical care as leverage. Israel has a duty to protect its population from armed groups and to prevent attacks on civilians. Hamas and other armed factions have an equally clear duty to release hostages, stop attacks on civilians and comply with international humanitarian law. Those obligations do not cancel one another out. Nor does the conduct of one party excuse violations by another.
The argument for conditional access
Supporters of restrictions argue that aid can be diverted by armed groups, strengthening their ability to fight and undermining Israel’s security. That concern cannot simply be dismissed. Humanitarian agencies must account for supplies, protect distribution systems and prevent armed actors from commandeering assistance. States also have legitimate reasons to screen shipments and demand safeguards.
But a security concern is not a blank cheque. Restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and carefully targeted. Broad limits that leave civilians without adequate shelter or medicine punish people who have no control over military decisions. They also create conditions in which disease, hunger and desperation spread—outcomes that endanger regional stability rather than improve it.
Humanitarian access is not a reward for political agreement; it is a civilian protection obligation.
The practical alternative is not blind delivery. It is monitored delivery. The UN and reputable aid agencies can use transparent inventories, independent distribution checks and public reporting to reduce diversion risks. Neutral medical facilities should receive protection, not suspicion by default. Where credible evidence of abuse exists, authorities should investigate specific incidents and prosecute those responsible rather than impose collective penalties.
Accountability must apply to everyone
The international response has too often treated accountability as selective. Governments issue statements, condemnations and warnings, while civilians endure the consequences. That gap has damaged trust in international law far beyond the Middle East. If the rules are applied only when politically convenient, they cease to function as rules.
Israel’s allies should use their influence to demand sustained access for relief, protection for humanitarian workers and credible investigations into alleged violations. Arab governments and other states with influence over Palestinian armed groups should press for the release of hostages, an end to attacks on civilians and genuine cooperation with aid operations. The Security Council should support mechanisms that document violations regardless of who commits them.
Some will argue that an editorial call for access risks simplifying a conflict shaped by terrorism, occupation, historical trauma and competing national claims. That criticism is fair if it demands political seriousness. Humanitarian policy cannot substitute for a durable political settlement. Yet complexity is not a reason for paralysis. It is a reason to separate immediate civilian protection from longer-term disputes.
The coming winter will expose whether governments view humanitarian law as a binding standard or a rhetorical accessory. The answer should be visible in open crossings, protected aid routes, adequate shelter and independent oversight—not only in diplomatic communiqués. Civilians should not have to survive a political test designed by people far from the rain, rubble and cold.